sthompson

Thank you for your efforts to keep VAICOMPRO alive and working!

Back when VAICOMPRO was a commercial product you could use some commands in a basic version but others in the "extended" command set required a "pro" license. I believe the option is a legacy from that time. Probably should be eliminated as an option now since everyone has the "pro" version in the community release. Glad to see that you got it fixed.

I've found that with newer versions of VA and VCP when you paste during the Finish step it displays something weird, but if you hit control-Home or control-End you can see that you actually got the entire string pasted in. You can verify this by running a Test afterwards to make sure that the strings match the database. If the string does match the database but appears to be corrupted then you probably have a corrupted database and you should reload the Keywords list from the Reset page, then do the Finish step again. You might let us know what versions you are using. I'm using VoiceAttack 64 bit version 1.14 and VAICOMPRO 2.9.5.0. I believe those are the latest versions. I'm not sure where you are seeing that error message on startup, but it appears to be related to the kneeboard and not to voice message processing. In any event, did you delete the old VAICOMPRO directory structure when you reinstalled? I'm wondering if there is an obsolete DLL file living there that did not get deleted on reinstall. In any event, what I suggested was to actually try the command and then report back as to what is generated in the VoiceAttack log when you give the voice command.

Reinstall rarely fixes anything in my experience. That other commands are working suggests that your installation is OK but that you have an issue with the command itself. But to be sure you might want to run the "test" function from the editor page. Assuming that doesn't turn up any problems, I suggest you turn on debugging, restart VA, and report what comes up in the log when you give the command that isn't being recognized.

Do you include a short pause between "Tower" and "Request Takeoff" while keeping the PTT open? That sometimes will fix problems like this. Personally I use the "ready for departure" version of that command.

Part of the confusion may have to do with the areas of overlap. When Normandy 2 was released it was announced that the overlap areas with the channel map would have less detail than the rest of that map. You can see this by looking at the area of high detail for Normandy 2. See the FAQ linked below. So much of Normandy 2 is very detailed, but not including the part that overlaps with the Channel map. Personally I think flying over London or Paris on the Normandy map is very cool. But there is a lot of detail in other areas on the Channel map (e.g. around Dover) that is missing from the Normandy map. Neither is uniformly better than the other. I like the DLC campaigns for the Channel map a little better since flying from England to Normandy and back takes quite a while and isn't very interesting.

I've flown the mission many times now, and I've never seen that message. This includes times that I just sat at the end of the runway for 10 minutes wondering if I was going to get a message. On the other hand, I've only seen the "good startup" message a few times, and I realized after the first time that I probably needed to get that to finish the mission successfully.

I finally figured out why I was failing Mission 1. I was not getting to the runway early enough. The three minute time limit is strict, I guess, but there is no "fail" message if you don't make it. I finally realized this when I got a "good startup" message on about my 10th try. It would be nice if the mission gave better feedback about whether you have met the time limit for starting up and being lined up for takeoff.

This doesn't work for me. My keyboard does auto repeat in other programs (e.g. text editor), but holding down the [ or ] keys in DCS with the kneeboard open does not auto repeat. Instead I get one page change for each press, no matter how long I hold it. Any suggestions about settings to change this would be appreciated.

I suspect that many (if not most users of DCS) are like me in that they do not try to master everything. They focus on one thing until they are good at it. For me that thing has never yet been the mission editor. The missions I've created suck compared to the ones I've played that were designed by Sorelo or Reflected, for example, as part of their campaigns. I'd much rather fly missions created by these masters of the craft than the boring ones I created myself. Maybe someday that will change, but for now, for me, the value of a map has a lot to do with the content that others have created for it, and not on what I can create myself. I'm sure I would find a lot of satisfaction in creating really good missions myself. But as of now, I don't have the time or skills for that, and I suspect I'm not alone. BTW, you misquoted me. I said " I'm hopeful that Kola will be better due to the likelihood that we get two DLC campaigns from good campaign developers." You left off the "I'm hopeful that" part of my post, and that changed the meaning considerably.

This. Would be nice if there was a good campaign for South Atlantic, or even some more interesting missions. I'm hopeful that Kola will be better due to the likelihood that we get two DLC campaigns from good campaign developers.

Thanks all. I marked @lengro 's post as the solution but @speed-of-heat came up with an equally nice solution. Very much appreciate the help.

Who knew that there is an OFF function? I've never seen that before and I've been playing DCS a long time. Is it documented? How do you implement it? I do not recall seeing OFF functions in the button drop down lists for controls.

There are a few things that I think get lost in the comparison of FC3 modules to other so-called "full fidelity" modules. First, all FC3 modules other than the Su-25 use the professional flight model. (See https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/). This is really important. The most important thing about a module in my view is its flight model. The thing that attracted me to Flanker 1.0 many years ago is that it was the first sim I experienced where there was a sense of flying rather than steering on rails, and this continues to this day. The main challenge for any module with a good flight model is learning to fly it well, not learning systems. There is a lot of content online of people flying the Flanker and Flogger well that make this point. That FC3 modules use professional flight modeling means that their development costs are significant. It's not like ED can come up with dozens of these at little cost. Personally, I'd be pretty upset if ED started releasing flyable modules with dumbed down physics. Fortunately, they have shown no inclination to do that. Second, clickable cockpit is not the same thing as "full fidelity." Real fighter pilots do not click things with a mouse or use a computer keyboard. They use their fingers and Hotas controls. Because using a mouse and keyboard while flying is awkward and unrealistic, I spend a good bit of time trying to map my clickable controls onto Hotas buttons. That is, given that I can't push console buttons or switches or knobs with my hands, I find it more realistic, and certainly easier, to map these to Hotas rather than using a mouse and keyboard. Of course for a complex module such as the hornet where there are dozens of buttons (think MFDs) that you might need to use in-flight you can only go so far with this approach. But the aspect of flying the Hornet that I find least realistic is having to grab the mouse when I need to push a button or throw a switch. To be clear, I enjoy the study aspect of learning a complex module like the Hornet. I like the more advanced radar and other systems compared to the FC3 Flanker. I'm not trying to suggest that this doesn't matter. But people who indicate that they have no interest in the FC3 planes because they are not clickable are missing that they still have excellent flight models and are enjoyable to fly and fight with. Furthermore, the controls interactions aren't that different once you map everything to hotas buttons. Personally, I'm curious to learn what is going to be simplified in the new FC4 aircraft relative to their clickable versions given that these are pretty simple modules already. For example, since almost everything of importance in the clickable MiG-15 can be mapped to hotas already, it isn't clear to me that the FC4 version will be very different in practice from the existing module. For example, when I fly the MiG-15 the only switches I click with a mouse are the ones needed for startup. The ones needed in flight are mapped to my stick and throttle.

I'm fully aware of all of that. But the keybindings for the theater map are not toggles, or a glance view. So this is not helpful advice. I suspect the solution I'm seeking will be something other than a built in control. I've searched and tested those already.

What do you mean "as you do now?" In DCS the F10 key is not a toggle, nor is the control-F10 that switches to map view over your current point. I'd be happy with a toggle but I don't see one in the key bindings.

Watching online videos of others playing DCS I sometimes see people bring up the f10 map for a very short period. I'm wondering if there is a way to map this to HOTAS so that a button press would take you to the F10 map while the button is held. Is there a keybind for that? I'd really like to be able to glance at the map without taking my hands off HOTAS. Suggestions welcome. I'm using VKB hardware, in case that matters.

You've mastered all of the aircraft to the point that you are bored? You win all your dogfights and never get shot down? The SAMS and AAA can't touch you? AAR is boring? You never miss a carrier trap? You've played all of the DLC campaigns without making a mistake? You dominate in online play? And you think that buying skins or low quality modules would solve those problems? If you are bored and think the game is tedious I suggest you switch to a different game rather than try to remake this one into an arcade game. I've been flying sims for more than 10 years. (I started with Flanker 1.0) And I am nowhere close to getting bored with DCS.

Some more info would be welcome. I already have FC3 and the FF versions of the other three planes. Will there be any advantage in purchasing the FC4 upgrade, apart from having a simplified version of the three new planes? And does "coexist" mean that you can have both installed on the same installation, or just that both will be available. Also, will the simplified and FF versions be interchangeable in missions? I'm hoping this will not break existing missions. And it would be best if existing missions using the F-5 for example, could be flown using the new version without changing the mission file.

So what do you do when a DCS update fails because your AV detects something wrong in one file that is needed for just one module? Do you uninstall the module? What if they never fix it, which in my experience is the norm. When I've reported this as a bug I've universally been told that it's a false positive that I should ignore and create an exception for, but no one ever offers any proof that it's a false positive. As to the second point, I've never gotten SRS to run properly except with admin privileges. Not sure why it needs those. If anyone has thoughts on how to run it without admin privileges I would like to know how.

The dcs_variant feature works to let DCS find your saved games folder, but I thought your issue was with SRS. I suspect that the issue for SRS was the space in the folder name. You might want to replace that with a period to match the format for dcs.openbeta.

I don't understand this. What's the difference? I'm pretty sure that if you start DCS from an administrator account then DCS inherits those rights exactly as if it were running "as administrator." Perhaps you could add some detail to your explanation.

You obviously haven't read the license agreement. It is very clear that they have no obligations other than what is in the license agreement, and that doesn't include any promises to continue development of early access modules, or even to fix bugs. Any perceptions you have to the contrary are based on a good faith expectation. That isn't unreasonable, and I believe ED is well-intentioned in their front of store representations. But it's no contract. Personally, trying to get back on topic, I think the Chinook module looks cool and likely will be a good addition to the DCS eco-system. But I'll probably wait for some reviews before buying it. I have enough trouble finding time to use all of the modules I already own.

If you were a dev would you be more likely to abandon a module if (a) there was an ongoing stream of revenue from people who use the module to support further development, or (b) the only way to get new revenue was to work on something else? A subscription model (as in option a) might not be a complete solution, but it probably would help enormously. Money talks.

There is no combat without logistical support, SAR, etc.